Sir John Edge :— This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 29th August, 1913, of the High Court at Calcutta, which set aside a decree dated the 28th July, 1909, of the District Judge of Mozufferpur granting probate of the will of one Kishun Kishore Narayan Singh, of Sursand, who died in November 1905. The only question in this appeal is as to whether the will, of which the appellant has sought to obtain probate, was executed by Kishun Kishore Narayan Singh or is a forgery. The appellant who propounded the will is the senior of the two widows of Kishun Kishore. The will which she propounded is dated the 15th November, 1905. Kishun Kishore was a zemindar living at Sursand, in the district of Mosufferpur. He was an elderly man, and had been twice married, but he had no issue by either of his wives, and he had no near agnatic relations. The caveators, who objected to probate of his alleged will being granted were distant cousins of his, with none of whom is it proved that Kishun Kishore had ever been on terms of intimate friendship. Kishun Kishore had been originally a comparatively poor man, but at the time of his death the income of his estate exceeded 60,000 rupees a year, and it is stated that, contingently on his surviving certain widows, he was the heir to a still larger estate. On the 10th November, 1905, Kishun Kishore, accompanied by his two wives and certain of his servants and dependants, went from Sursand to Sonepur to attend the bathing fair there. He was suffering from dysentery, and cholera having broken out at the bathing fair, he became nervous as to the state of his health and in the afternoon of the 13th November he sent a man in his employment, named Mahbub Hossein, with a carriage for Major Gwyther, of the Indian Medical Service, who was the Civil Surgeon in medical charge of the bathing fair at Sonepur. Major Gwyther found that Kishun Kishore was suffering from dysentery, and was weak and much afraid of the disease and its consequences. Major Gwyther saw Kishun Kishore again at 9 a.m. and at 5 p.m. on the 14th November, and between 10 and 11 o'clock of the forenoon of the 15th November. Major Gwyther found that Kishun Kishore was suffering from dysentery, and was weak and much afraid of the disease and its consequences. Major Gwyther saw Kishun Kishore again at 9 a.m. and at 5 p.m. on the 14th November, and between 10 and 11 o'clock of the forenoon of the 15th November. When Major Gwyther saw Kishun Kishore on the morning of the 15th, Kishun Kishore, in Major Gwyther's opinion, was not very weak, his condition was a good deal improved, and he was in a fit state of mind to execute any document. Major Gwyther did not notice any choleraic symptoms in the condition of Kishun Kishore. Major Gwyther did not again visit Kishun Kishore. He promised Kishun Kishore to call again in the evening of the 15th if he were sent for. Major Gwyther has stated in his evidence that Kishun Kishore's carriage did not call for him that evening at the time when he expected it, and, consequently, thinking that he was not required, he went to attend to another call, leaving instructions with his native servant that he should be sent for should his services be urgently required. Later in the evening Major Gwyther went to a call, from which he wag not summoned to attend to Kishun Kishore. Their Lordships accept Major Gwyther's statement as correct. There is evidence, which their Lordships see no reason to doubt, that a servant of Kishun Kishore was sent in the evening of the 15th to bring Major Gwyther to see Kishun Kishore, and found that Major Gwyther was out, and that later, at about 1 o'clock in the morning of the 16th, when Major Gwyther was at the ball, Sham Behari Singh was sent to call Major Gwyther to Kishun Kishore's tent, and Kishun Kishore was then conscious. Major Gwyther's servant, probably considering that Major Gwyther's services were not urgently required by Kishun Kishore, did not inform Major Gwyther that he had been sent for. The bathing fair having been broken up on account of the outbreak of cholera, Major Gwyther left Sonepur at 10 a.m. of the 16th November. Kishun Kishore died, according to the evidence on behalf of his widow, the appellant, of dysentery at about 3 a.m. of the 16th November. The bathing fair having been broken up on account of the outbreak of cholera, Major Gwyther left Sonepur at 10 a.m. of the 16th November. Kishun Kishore died, according to the evidence on behalf of his widow, the appellant, of dysentery at about 3 a.m. of the 16th November. According to the case of the caveator respondent Kishun Kishore was suffering from cholera in the forenoon of the 15th November, and by midday of the 15th was unconscious and died of cholera at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that day. If it be true that Kishun Kishore was unconscious by midday of the 15th November and died that afternoon, the case for the appellant is a false case and the will which has been propounded was not executed by Kishun Kishore. (Here the will as translated was recited and the judgment proceeded.) On behalf of the caveators, respondents, it is alleged that the witnesses who were called to prove the execution of the will which has been propounded have given false evidence, and that Kishun Kishore did not in fact execute the will. On behalf of the caveators, it has also been contended that Chandreshwar Prashad never was in fact adopted by Kishun Kishore, and that it is to be inferred that the alleged will is not a genuine will, as it, according to the caveators, contains a false statement that Chandreshwar Prashad had been adopted, which a pious Hindu, such as Kishun Kishore was, would not have made; also it has been the case of the caveators that the will should not be accepted as a genuine will of Kishun Kishore, as it had not been prepared by a lawyer of position, had not been witnessed by any independent person of position, such as the owner of a considerable zamindari or a Government official, had not been registered, and had not been publicly put forward until the 22nd December, 1905. It was also contended on behalf of the caveators, that a pious Hindu would not have made such a disposition of his property as that contained in the sixth clause of the will. (The judgment here dealt with the evidence of the attesting witnesses and continued.) An attempt was made on behalf of the caveators to have the question as to the adoption of Chandreshwar Prashad formally raised and decided in this case. (The judgment here dealt with the evidence of the attesting witnesses and continued.) An attempt was made on behalf of the caveators to have the question as to the adoption of Chandreshwar Prashad formally raised and decided in this case. Although the question as to the alleged adoption is not one which could be excluded from consideration by a Court when considering whether it is probable that the will is a genuine will or a fabrication, it could not be tried as a material and vital issue on an application for a grant of probate, the necessary parties to such an issue not being before the Court. Further, a finding either for or against the adoption would not be decisive as to whether the will which was propounded was a genuine will or a fabrication. The District Judge before whom the application for the grant of probate first came rightly declined to frame an issue as to the alleged adoption. The caveators were, however, not precluded from questioning the adoption of Chandreshwar Prashad. They cross-examined at great length and very fully some of the appellant's witnesses on the subject, and they called evidence in an attempt to disprove the alleged adoption. Their Lordships have been pressed to take into their consideration, on the question as to whether the will is a genuine will or a forgery the evidence as to the adoption, all that their Lordships need say is that, having regard to the evidence brought out by the cross-examination of witnesses for the appellant, and having regard to the evidence of the witnesses who were called by the caveators to prove that Chandreshwar Prashad was not adopted, they see no reason to doubt that Chandreshwar Prashad was adopted by Kishun Kishore. The provision made by the will for the wives of Kishun Kishore, and the provision made for Chandreshwar Prashad do not appear to their Lordships to be unreasonable, or such as a Hindu gentleman situated as Kishun Kishore was might not reasonably and naturally have made. He was apparently an affectionate husband, and he desired that Chandreshwar Prashad should enjoy the advantages of having been taken by him in adoption as his son. He was apparently an affectionate husband, and he desired that Chandreshwar Prashad should enjoy the advantages of having been taken by him in adoption as his son. The provision in the 6th clause of the will to take effect in the event of Chandreshwar Prashad dying childless within seventy-five years after Kishun Kishore's death was doubtless unusual, as by the 6th clause Kishun Kishore intended that, in the event mentioned in that clause occurring, the property should pass to a family which dees not appear to have been related in blood to him, but it must be remembered that he had no near relatives in blood, and he may reasonably have desired to confer a benefit on blood relations of his senior wife in the event of his adopted son dying without issue within 75 years of his own death. It is not necessary in these probate proceedings to decide what is the effect in law of the provisions in the will to which their Lordships have referred, but they fail to see that the will was not a will which a Hindu gentleman situated as Kishun Kishore was might not reasonably and naturally have made. Under the circumstances, and there being nothing in the case to suggest that the will had been forged or that the witnesses who gave evidence as to the preparation, and as to the due execution of the will had committed perjury, the contention that the will should not be accepted as the genuine will of Kishun Kishore because the witnesses to its execution were not of a superior position is not sound and is contrary to the view of the law as expressed by this Board Chotey Narain Singh v. Mussamat Ratan Koer [1894] 22 Cal. 519 — 22 I.A. 12 — 6 Sar. 564 (P.C.), and more recently in not Mt. Jagrami Koer v. Kuar Durga Prasad [1913] 36 All. 93 — 22 I.C. 103 — 41 I.A. 80 (P.C.). Something more than mere suspicion is necessary in such a case to make convincing an argument based on the social position of the witnesses. 519 — 22 I.A. 12 — 6 Sar. 564 (P.C.), and more recently in not Mt. Jagrami Koer v. Kuar Durga Prasad [1913] 36 All. 93 — 22 I.C. 103 — 41 I.A. 80 (P.C.). Something more than mere suspicion is necessary in such a case to make convincing an argument based on the social position of the witnesses. If the will had been executed at Sursand where Kishun Kishore's home was, it is possible that he might, by way of precaution, have obtained as witnesses to his will some neighbours of a superior class, but this will was executed at Sonepur in the confusion which must have resulted from the outbreak of a severe epidemic of cholera, and the breaking up of the bathing fair by the Government's orders in consequence of the cholera. The attesting witnesses were such as one would reasonably expect to be available, on the occasion. It had been intended to get Major Gwyther to attest the will in the afternoon of the 15th November, but owing to some delay in sending Kishun Kishore's carriage for Major Gwyther, that officer did not know that his attendance at Kishun Kishore's tent was required that afternoon, and he did not attend. Having regard to the circumstances that Kishun Kishore died at Sonepur and to the grief of his widows caused by his death, their Lordships attach no importance to the fact that the will was not registered, or to the fact that the will was not presented to the Court until the 22nd December. If there was any reasonable cause for doubting the evidence as to the execution of the will the delay in presenting the will to the Court might possibly raise some suspicion as to the genuineness of the will, but their Lordships are satisfied on the evidence that the will which has been propounded is the genuine will of Kishun Kishore. The District Judge, after a careful consideration of the evidence and of the probabilities of the case, granted probate of the will. The learned Judges of the High Court in appeal set aside the decree of the District Judge on what appears to their Lordships to have been mere grounds of suspicion, which were not justified by the evidence before them. The learned Judges of the High Court in appeal set aside the decree of the District Judge on what appears to their Lordships to have been mere grounds of suspicion, which were not justified by the evidence before them. The learned Judges apparently allowed their minds to be influenced in considering the evidence by the fact that a note of the evidence which Major Gwyther could give was not produced in Court for the information of the caveators. That note was obtained from Major Gwyther in 1906 by Mahbub Hossein, acting on behalf of the appellant, and for the purposes of the appellant's brief in this litigation as to the grant of probate of the will. It was a note which was privileged from production, and which the caveators were not entitled to see. The material facts, as their Lordships on the evidence find them, are as follows : Kishun Kishore, after his arrival at Sonepur, having become nervous as to the state of his health, decided to make a will as soon as possible, and with that object sent a messenger, Sirdar Singh, on the 14th November to Mozufferpur to bring to him at Sonepur, Jogendar Mookerji, the pleader of Mozufferpur. The messenger returned to Sonepur about midnight with the information that Jogendar Mookerji was at Calcutta : Kishun Kishore on being informed that Jogendar Mookerji was absent from Mozufferpur, directed that a telegram should be sent to him, and that in the meantime Tajammul Hussain, whom he knew, should be sent for. Tajammul Hussain lived at Hajipur, not far from Sonepur, Mahbub Hossein thereupon sent Udit Singh for Tajammul Hussain, who was brought to Kishun Kishore early on the morning of the 15th November. After the arrival of Tajammul Hussain, Kishun Kishore gave to him his instructions for the preparation of his will, and Tajammul Hussain, with the assistance of Mahbub Hossein, who acted as the scribe, prepared a draft will. Mahbub Hossein was making a fair copy of the draft in Kishun Kishore's tent when Major Gwyther called on the morning of the 15th. That fair copy was read out to Kishun Kishore, and, having been approved by him, he at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon of the 15th November executed it as his will in the presence of several persons, who signed the will as witnesses. That fair copy was read out to Kishun Kishore, and, having been approved by him, he at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon of the 15th November executed it as his will in the presence of several persons, who signed the will as witnesses. The will which was so executed by Kishun Kishore is the will which has been propounded. Kishun Kishore was, although physically weak, quite capable mentally and physically of making the will. His testamentary capacity is not now disputed. Kishun Kishore died about 3 a.m. on the 16th November. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed, and the decree of the High Court should be set aside with costs, and the decree of the District Court should be restored. The respondents must pay the costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed.